One thing I've never seen from a Conservative member is an over-the-top comment. Have you, Mr. Chair? I never have.
In any event, I know that what Mr. Trudeau was talking about was machine guns and so on. They were prohibited guns, not something that hunters and anglers normally use. People going to a shooting range certainly sometimes do, and he is, as we are as a party, worried about that open transport becoming common practice.
I also want to underline something the leader said. He said he has absolutely no intention of bringing back the gun registry. That's a no-go. I think that lesson has been learned, and I hope it has been learned by all parties. I have some familiarity with that myself.
In any event, there really doesn't seem to be a lot of reason in terms of stats and numbers why these changes are being made.
I want to come back to Mr. Randall's point, because I think it is probably the most important one and one of the reasons we are taking the position we do, and that is the value of education and having this where it is under law. I respect everyone who, like myself, has had BB guns or pellet guns. I admit that we did some unsafe things with them when we were kids.
As for the value of education, I think it is wrong to have two sets of rules. Do you not see any value in leaving things as they are? There have been obviously no charges under the law. When people are using BB guns and pellet guns appropriately, and then they transfer into hunting rifles and so on, it's a good start to get into hunting and angling, etc. Is there no value to that? Why wouldn't you want the same law? I think you are complicating things with this bill.